Much of what is passed about truth regarding the Catholic Church
is based on myth and sometime bigotry. Find out what the Church really
teaches.

About cwlibrary Tracts

"Catholic
Answers" produced most of The
tracts in this section. Those residing on this site are earlier versions
collected from CIN and other sources at a time when specific permission
to distribute and reproduce the information was granted. Visit Catholic
Answers to obtain the latest tracts and to purchase printed versions.

The (F) appearing after selected tract titles means the tract is part
of the "Fathers Know Best" series and contains a collection of quotes
from the early Church Fathers.

" THE MARKS OF CHRIST'S CHURCH"

At a seminar, a man stood up during the question period. "What is
the name of Christ's church according to the New Testament?" he asked.

"What do you mean?" was the reply. Our speaker thought the man
was going to note the Bible doesn't use the term "Roman Catholic Church."

"Would you say the name of the church is the Church of Christ?""Naturally,
Christ' church could be called the Chruch of Christ since it's Christ's
Church."

"Well," said the questioner, "I'm a former Catholic. Now
I'm a minister in the Church of Christ [a Protestant denomination],
which meets down the street. You can tell from our name that ours must be the
church Christ founded."

Not surprisingly, our speaker didn't quite know what to say, except that
he wasn't impressed with this logic. He was tempted to ask, but didn't: "If
we Catholics change the name of our church to `the Chruch of Christ,' would
you then say that ours is the church Christ founded?"

If we can't tell from the names alone which of the hundreds of Christian
churches is the one established by Christ, how can we tell? Only by examining
a church's credentials. The credentials
that the Catholic Church has to offer are its four mark.

There are two aspects to a mark:

First, it must be an outwardly visible
sign. If it's not, it's useless as a means of identification. Your house
number is
useful only because it's on the outside of your house and visible from
the street. If it were posted on a wall of the living room, it wouldn't
be a sign
that this is your house. In short, a mark must be evident to everyone. It
can't hide under the bushel basket. That's the first requirement.

The seconcd is that the mark must be an essential characteristic, one
without which the Church couldn't even be. Marks of the Church don't exist
only as a means of identification, as does a watermark on paper, but must
be parts of the very nature of the Church. Infallibility, which is an essential
characteristic of the Church, is not visible, so it's not a mark. Miracles,
which are visible characteristics, are not essential, so they aren't marks
either. But unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity are both visible
and essential, and they're the four marks of the
Church.

HOW NOT TO DISCUSS MARKS

Before we go further, let's keep in mind the wrong method of discussing
the marks. This kind of syllogism is no good at all:"If God founded
a church,it would have to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. In fact,
the Catholic Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Therefore it's
the church Christ
founded." First, it isn't evident from the mere stating that the
Church would have to have these four characteristics. Second, this
syllogism doesn't prove that some other church couldn't share them.
The most it proves is that if Christ founded a church, and if that
church still exists, and if no other church has these four marks,
then the Catholic Church is that church.

A better, but still inadequate, argument is this: "Our Lord
said his Church would be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The
Catholic Church is precisely that, so it must be his Church." The
problem here is that you'd find yourself bickering over every
scriptural passage you educe as proof: "Where does Christ say the
Church must be `one," or `holy,' or `catholic' [a word not used in
the New Testament for the Church] or `apostolic' [another absent
word]?" Besides, this kind of argument can appeal to Christians
only. The Church's task, though, is to convert all men, so the
marks must be able to convince even non-Christians.

THE HOW-TO

Although we've identified the marks, we still haven't
identified the method to be used to discuss them.

The right method of argumentation is this. Begin with the
Catholic Chruch as a fact. It exists, after all, as even its most
virulent opponents acknowledge. (If it didn't exist, they wouldn't
bother opposing it, right?) Then take the four marks as facts
which are known (or knowable) by all, even if they aren't fully (or
at all) realized. Show what these marks prove.

First, describe the marks as graphically as possible. It
isn't enough just to give their names. That won't convince anyone.
When you talk to a non-Catholic about the unity or catholicity of
the Church, give him a mental picture of what you mean. Give
concrete examples so he can begin to understand what you're talking
about.

Do the same kind of thing for holiness. We're not talking
here about peering into men's consciences. You can't do that, and
it's not required anyhow. Talk about the holy doctrine of the
Church (it's tough, demanding, and higher than that of other
churches -- take HUMANAE VITAE as an example of heights to which
other churches don't even aspire; this papal encyclical explains
why we're called to a higher morality that includes not using
contraception), about the Church having the means of holiness (the
sacraments), and about the saints (only in the Church is found a
plenitude of extreme holiness).

When you come to apostolicity, use the historically unbroken
descent and use Rome as the central peg. Illustrate the missionary
work of the Church (in all ages, not just since the nineteenth
century, as with Protestant chruches).

If you have described the marks well, there won't be any
question about their existence. Then you have to show what their
existence proves.

THE CHURCH IS ONE

Look again at unity and catholicity, which can be considered
together. The key here is miracles, because these marks are
miracles. They can't be accounted for any other way.

The Church has been unified throughout the centuries, teaching
one doctrine. True, individuals Christians have lost that unity,
going this way and that, sometimes doing so corporately in the form
of sects that split off from the Church. But the Church itself has
always remained one, no matter how many have left its unity.

(Side note: It's proper to pray for the unity of Christians,
but not for the unity of the Catholic Church. The Church always
has been unified -- that is, one. To pray for its unity, as though
it were broken into several branches, is, strictly speaking,
heretical. To pray for the unity of Christian chruches -- which
ultimately means their reunion with the already-unified Catholic
Church -- is perfectly proper.)

WHY DIDN'T IT DISAPPEAR?

The catholicity of the Church is something that is naturally
inexplicable. During nineteen centuries, if the Catholic Church
hadn't been protected miraculously by God, it should have fallen
apart, disappeared even, any number of times.

It should have been stopped before it could spread far. You
can't account for its duration and extent by pointing to
politically clever popes, for the simple reason that many popes
have been, politically, dumb. When speaking with a non-Catholic,
make him see how super-human the unity and catholicity of the
Church must be. (If he is a Protestant, remind him of Matthew
16:19, Matthew 28:20, and John 14:16.)

Now turn to apostolicity. This shows that today's Church is
one with the Church of the apostles. Trace apostolic succession
backwards to give your listener an idea of what it is -- and what
it isn't. It isn't necessary to be able to trace every bishop's
consecration back to the apostles. You don't need to produce
something like a flow chart or corporate organization outline. What
is needed is a moral certainty, which is shown in part by gaps
being filled in, in part by the absence of countervailing
information. (For instance, if Bishop B wasn't a legitimate
successor to Bishop A, where are the records of complaint?) Unlike
the other marks, apostolicity will appeal mainly to other
Christians.

WHAT HOLINESS SUGGESTS

The last mark you will turn to will be holiness. Demonstrate
that the outwardly manifested holiness of its members argues to the
inward holiness of the Church, that the Church is the source of all
holiness.

Note that you will have made no use of the New Testament so
far, for the very good reason that the Church existed before any
part of the New Testament was written, and so did the marks of the
Church. The marks aren't dependent on the New Testament, and they
can't be proved from it, though they can be demonstrated from it.

Although the marks themselves will be sufficient proof for the
atheist, with "Bible Christians" it may be useful, as a concession,
to end with scriptural references, but never should you begin with
them. If you do, you'll end up squabbling about the meaning of
each text -- something that can be avoided if the meaning of the
marks is first made clear.